Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:It is an ad. (Score 1) 216

I am. If push comes to shove, most people will pick a candidate if it was mandatory to vote. It might make people give even a little thought to who they want making decisions that affect their lives. If they're really ambivalent, confused, frustrated, they have the option of spoiling their ballots. But, I suspect that will be a small minority. Instead, I think we'd actually see a better representation of what the people want.

Comment Re:Technobabble can help the argument too (Score 2) 200

I think it would be the reverse of what you said.

For example is you say the NSA is collecting telephone metadata that sounds benign as they don't know what metadata is. If you simplify it and say the NSA is having AT&T share the info on their phone bills; date, number called, duration ... then people would understand and probably rate the collection of much higher importance as they understand their privacy is being invaded.

Comment Re:Honest question. (Score 1) 479

I don't have any citations and don't have the time to search right now, but a lot of research is looking at why girls lose interest in STEM much earlier than at the university entrance stage. There's been research that shows girls are interested in STEM in their early teens but by their late teens many have lost it? Why? Have they been discouraged by teachers/counsellers, peers, media? It's not an easy question to answer, if at all.

Comment Re:Good (Score 2) 142

The federal government in Canada is officially bilingual and provides services in both official languages. The only province that is bilingual is New Brunswick and it also provides services in both languages. Quebec is unilingual French, and is required to only provide services in that language. All other provinces are unilingual English.

Comment Re:Sigh (Score 1) 748

you'll instead have a nasty court battle with the sibling arguing "they hated each other" and the partner arguing "we loved each other."

There's nasty court cases like that every day in the courts with the current system. That's no reason to change things.

Comment Re:Sigh (Score 1) 748

Inheritance can be handled by ensuring the parties involved have set up their wills properly. It could easily be the case that married couples don't leave their individual assets to one another. Shared assets are a different issue and can easily be dealt with with existing civil laws (e.g. joint tenancy for property ownership).

Comment Re:Sigh (Score 1) 748

No, actually I don't.

In your example there's not enough info to determine if the person who died (wasn't me, I have a will that sets out explicitly what I want done with my estate) wanted either the sibling or the romantic partner to get all or part of the money. Maybe the person was on the verge of breaking up with the partner. Maybe the partner is independently wealthy and the sibling has more need of the money. Maybe the sibling has children. Maybe the person wanted to leave all the money to her favourite charity.

Regardless, I don't see how the government getting out of marriage affects the outcome in this case.

Comment Re:Sigh (Score 0) 748

There was a news show on a number of years ago about identical twin sisters one of whom was happy being a woman (married with children) and the other felt like she was a (straight) man trapped inside a woman's body and was undergoing the process to have a sex change operation. Psychiatrists were especially interested in these twins because a lot of the theories of why someone is homosexual could be ruled out. They're genetics are (mostly) the same, they would have been exposed to the same hormones in utero, they were raised similarly (no sibling is raised exactly the same as another, even twins). In the end it was still a mystery as to why one twin was a hetereosexual woman and the other was not.

Comment Re:Sigh (Score 4, Insightful) 748

I agree. I'm Canadian where we do allow homosexual marriage (which I'm fine with), but ideally I would like the concept of civil marriage to be done away with. If you believe in a religion that has marriage, then that's fine and feel free to marry/divorce according to that religions customs/beliefs. But, that shouldn't have any effect on our civil lives regarding taxes, benefits etc.

Life in the state of nature is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. - Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan